About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)
. and yet promoting human rights isn't a foreign policy, and it's not a foreign policy priority simply because it's the right thing to do. it's time to our own security. it's tied to the possibilities of prosperity and of nations living by rule of law and of nation's living in peace. countries where strong human rights prevail our countries where people do better, economies thrive, rule of law is stronger, governments are more effective and more responsive, and they are countries that lead on the world stage and project stability across their regions. strong respect for human rights isn't merely an indicator that a country is likely doing well. it actually unleashes a countries potential, and it helps to advance growth and progress. so i ask you just to think of the country like burma for a minute. because of steps towards democratic reform and stronger human rights protections, a country that had been isolated for years is now making progress. as it reached where we wanted to be? know, but it's on the road. it's moving. and more people are contributed economy and participating in the
pillar of our 21st century foreign policy. there's no disagreement about that in my country. the parliament passed last year anonymously a policy resolution which defined the icelandic objective in the arctic. so together with the other nordic countries we hope to play a constructive part and evidence of this was that few months ago one of our april servant was the first director general of the secretary of the arctic. >> several currency questions. the icelandic money is coming out of financial turmoil. what would you consider the future of the money? and are you considering any alternative currency for iceland ? >> i think it's a positive indication of how we have all dealt with the financial crisis. i can comment on the national press club only six minutes are left and i get that question. [laughter] of the financial issues. nobody would believe that for a five years ago. without in state of affairs we could perhaps come together again and talk about how we're the financial crisis and how we dealt with a crisis in a different way from many other countries. how we did not
by foreign governments. the cia recognized this in an internal review and acknowledged that many of the interrogation techniques that employed were inconsistent with the public policy positions that the united states has taken regarding human rights. the united states is understandably subject to criticism when it criticized another nation for engaging in torture, then justifies the same conduct under national security arguments. there are those that defend the techniques of, like waterboarding, stress and sleep deprivation because there was the office of legal counsel, which issued a decision of proving of their use because they defined them as not being torture. those opinions have since been repudiated by legal experts and the olc itself. and even in it his opinion it relies not only on a very narrow legal definition of torture but also on factual representation about how the techniques would be implemented that later proved inaccurate. this is in important context as to how the penny came about but also how policymakers relied upon it. based upon a thorough review of the avai
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)